Child Protection: Trailblazer Scheme

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What practical lessons for improving childcare and protection they draw from the experience of those local authorities using local indexes under the Trailblazer Scheme; and whether services such as police and probation have had access to the indexes.

Lord Adonis: Nine local authority "trailblazers" have piloted information sharing index approaches with financial support from my department. In these areas, indexes have worked effectively to help improve well-being and welfare, including child protection, by providing a tool to enable practitioners to identify quickly a child and see who else is working with that child so that they can contact them to discuss whether it is appropriate to share information. This in turn supports earlier, more effective intervention.
	On 8 December 2005, I laid in the House of Lords Library the report Learning from Information Sharing and Assessment Trailblazers detailing the main lessons learnt from the trailblazer authorities' work. In some trailblazer authorities, authorised users of the indexes include members of youth offending teams and police officers whose roles bring them into frequent contact with children and young people, through domestic violence cases, youth offending programmes, "Safer Schools" partnerships and other specialist roles relating to children and young people. No trailblazers' indexes have users from the probation service, which provides services primarily in respect of adults.

Commission for Equality and Human Rights

Lord Ouseley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Baroness Scotland of Asthal on 18 January (WA 108) on financial provision for 2005–06 and 2007–08 for preparations for the establishment of the proposed Commission for Equality and Human Rights, whether they will provide this information for 2006–07.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Answer on 18 January should have stated that expected expenditure is in the region of £7.1 million for the year 2006–07, not for the year 2007–08. I apologise for this inadvertent mistake and have produced a table setting our expenditure for preparations for the establishment of the proposed Commission for Equality and Human Rights over the three-year period.
	
		
			  Year 2005–06 Year 2006–07 Year 2007–08 
			 Expected expenditure £0.8 million £7.1 million £16.1 million

Common Agricultural Policy

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the latest date on which they will decide to opt for a partial payment of the single farm payments scheme; and
	Whether, if it is necessary to make a partial payment under the single farm payments scheme, such payment will be made only to those farmers who had been paid under the previous system.

Lord Bach: We announced on 31 January that full payments for the single payment scheme will begin in February and the contingency system to make partial payments will not, therefore, be invoked.

Common Agricultural Policy

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Answer by the Lord Bach on 24 January (Official Report, col. 1062), what proportion of the total claims constitute the bulk of claims for which payments will be made in March.

Lord Bach: We cannot be precise at this stage about how many payments will be outstanding at the end of March. It will be a minority and we will have a better idea on numbers once the definitive establishment process is complete.

Common Agricultural Policy

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many of those farms to which they do not expect to make payments within the time limit for the single farm payments scheme are (a) under 100 acres; (b) under 250 acres; and (c) under 500 acres.

Lord Bach: The payment window runs until 30 June and it is expected that all payments that it is possible to make (save those subject to queries such as probate) will be made by that date, although I expect the bulk of payments will have been made by the end of March.

Common Agricultural Policy

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How long they anticipate the interval will be between the first tranche of payments under the single farm payments scheme and the balance of payments.

Lord Bach: I announced on 31 January that full payments under the single payment scheme would start in February. The latest date that payments can be made within the regulatory payment window is the 30 June, although I expect the bulk of payments will have been made by the end of March.

Department for Transport: BAA

Lord Hanningfield: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Davies of Oldham on 12 January (WA 83), what meetings were held by Ministers and officials in the Department for Transport with BAA during the past 12 months; and what was the nature and purpose of each meeting.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The matters discussed in ministerial and official meetings with BAA about the expansion of Stansted are confidential for commercial and other reasons. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to summarise the precise nature and purpose of the meetings that have taken place during the past 12 months.

Department for Transport: Official Air Travel

Lord Hanningfield: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What the Department for Transport's policy is in regard to the use of air travel in order to carry out official business.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The department's policy on air travel is contained in the travel and subsistence chapter of its staff handbook. Official travellers are encouraged to use the most cost-effective methods of travel which will help them to reach their destinations safely, in good time and in reasonable comfort. Air travel may be used for journeys overseas and for long-distance travel within the UK. Flights with a duration of less than 2.5 hours must be booked economy class, and flights in excess of 2.5 hours may be business/club class. Upgrades to higher classes of ticket may only be made in exceptional circumstances, such as when there are no tickets available in the approved class, where the facilities in economy class do not meet the needs of pregnant or disabled travellers, or when necessarily accompanying someone travelling in a higher class. Any benefits such as air miles accrued as a result of official travel may not be used for personal travel, but may used to offset the cost of future official journeys where possible.
	Policy on air travel in the department's agencies is broadly similar to that in the central department, and identical in the cases of MCA, VCA and DVLA. DSA does not have a specific air travel policy, but requires that all journeys must be arranged as economically as possible, taking into account the cost of the travel and the cost of official time. VOSA allows air travel when this is more economical because of savings in travel and subsistence expenses and VOSA time; or the urgency of the journey justifies the cost. With a few exceptions all travel must be made at standard or economy fares. HA allows air travel for overseas journeys, but expects such journeys to be undertaken in the most economical and efficient manner. For UK travel HA's preferred mode of transport is rail, but it permits travelling by air where this offers overall savings in terms of fares, subsistence and official time. Where these criteria are not met, air travel may nevertheless be allowed if the urgency of the journey justifies the extra cost. The presumption is that staff will travel economy class. GCDA has no specific policy on air travel.

Electoral Register

Lord Norton of Louth: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What proportion of electors have opted out of having their names included in the electoral register that is made available commercially.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The Representation of the People Regulations 2002 provide that electors may opt out of the edited version of the register of electors if they do not want their details to be sold to anyone for any purpose. The figures in respect of the electoral register published on 1 December 2005 covering the year 2005–06 are not yet available. According to statistics provided by the credit reference agencies, 29.29 per cent. of eligible electors (representing 13,099,264 people) opted out of inclusion in the edited version of the register compiled in 2004.

EU: Asylum Seekers

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will ensure that implementation of the European Union (EU) Directive on Asylum Procedures does not permit asylum applicants to be returned to a third safe country outside the EU, without having their cases heard within the EU.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Existing domestic legislation in Section 33 and Schedule 3 to the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 provides for the certification of asylum claims on safe third country grounds. This includes the return of asylum applicants to safe third countries outside the EU without first having their cases heard substantively within the EU. We consider that nothing in the directive prevents such returns and are satisfied that our domestic legislation is consistent with our international obligations. We do not, therefore, envisage implementing the safe third country provisions in the directive in a way which would prevent third country removals to safe non-EU countries.

EU: Regional Development

Lord Vinson: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's suggestion that regional spending should be returned to the control of European Union member states to avoid waste and mismanagement, whether the structural funds will be returned to the United Kingdom under the subsidiarity arrangements.

Lord Triesman: As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister explained in his Statement to Parliament on 19 December, the European Council of 15–16 December 2005 succeeded in achieving agreement on the next EC budget for the 2007–13 financial perspective. As part of the package, the member states reached agreement on future structural and cohesion funds spending.
	The Government have argued consistently that, following enlargement, it is right that the structural funds should be focused to a greater extent on the poorest EU member states. The agreement will enable the EU to address priorities in the new member states while still maintaining some funding for richer member states, in particular their poorer regions. The older EU member states (the EU15) will face reductions in spending compared with current levels, reflecting their comparative prosperity and the need to support the economic convergence of the new member states.
	The degree to which member states can determine how structural funding is used in their regions will be determined by the separate structural fund regulations, which are still being negotiated. Each member state's national strategic reference frameworks (NSRF) will set out the broad objectives for future programmes within each member state. Within their strategic frameworks, member states will have considerable flexibility in directing structural fund spending in accordance with agreed EU aims for regional development. The Government are planning to consult on the UK's draft NSRF over the coming months.

EU: UK Contributions

Lord Stevens of Ludgate: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How much the United Kingdom will receive back in European Union (EU) funds per head compared to other EU member states.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: As the Prime Minister said in his Statement to the House on 19 December, the agreement reached at the European Council now means that after some 20 years of paying twice as much as France, UK and French contributions will now be in rough parity.
	Based on the European Commission's forecasts and assumptions, and using the financial perspective table agreed on 17 December 2005, Treasury estimates for France and the UK's gross contributions, receipts and net contributions from 2007–13 are:
	
		€ per capita, 2004 prices
		
			 2007–13 Gross contribution after abatement Receipts Net contribution 
			 France -2,242/-2,236 1,434 -808/-801 
			 UK -1,702/-1,725 772 -930/-954 
		
	
	The UK's actual financing share, receipts and abatement are all dependent on a number of variables including the actual rate of spending in each policy area in each member state and the pound/euro exchange rate.

Extraordinary Rendition Flights

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they are under a positive obligation in international law to seek to prevent the use of United Kingdom air space or airports for the purpose of facilitating torture or other ill treatment of individuals carried on civil or military aircraft.

Lord Triesman: Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, when read with Article 1, imposes a positive obligation on states to take measures designed to ensure that individuals within their jurisdiction are not subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In so far as individuals on board civil or military aircraft in UK airspace or airports are within the UK's jurisdiction for the purpose of the convention, this positive obligation applies. The measures that are required to be taken in any given situation will depend upon the circumstances of the case.

Health: Fluoridated Water

Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, in the light of (a) the finding of the National Diet and Nutrition Study 2003 that a subset of the population may be consuming more fluoride than the maximum officially recommended figure; and (b) the new requirement under the Water Act 2003 that strategic health authorities implementing new fluoridation schemes should monitor the health of populations receiving fluoridated water and publish their findings, these same requirements will apply to strategic health authorities where there are existing fluoridation schemes; and what arrangements will be made to identify over-consumers of fluoride and to advise them accordingly.

Lord Warner: The National Diet and Nutrition Survey (NDNS) report published in 2003 included a study of 24-hour urinary excretion of fluoride in a sample of adults aged 19 to 64 in Great Britain between July 2000 and June 2001. The report noted:
	"Safe intakes of fluoride for adults are 0.05mg/kg/day. Overall, 1 per cent. of men and 3 per cent. of women had a urinary fluoride excretion per 24 hours that suggest intakes of fluoride above the safe level. This proportion ranged from none of those aged 19 to 24 years to 2 per cent. of men and 6 per cent. of women aged 50 to 64 years."
	In this age group the relevant concern is that excessive intake of fluoride over many years may lead to clinical skeletal fluorosis. This condition is associated with a long-term fluoride intake several times higher than the "safe intake for fluoride" cited in the NDNS report. Furthermore, urinary fluoride excretion over 24 hours is largely determined by fluoride intake in the previous few days; therefore, the range of recent daily fluoride intakes estimated by the authors of the report may be wider than the range of long-term average daily fluoride intakes in the population.
	The report's findings do not imply that fluoride intakes in adults in Great Britain will lead to clinical skeletal fluorosis. The Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment concluded in September 2003 that,
	"based on the current information available and the dietary intakes estimated from the 1997 Total Diet Study, no adverse effects other than mild to moderate dental fluorosis would be expected to be associated with fluoride intake from food, either in adults or in children, at the intake levels in the UK". (COT Statement 2003/03)
	Thus, the results of both recent surveys are consistent with the absence of reports of clinical skeletal fluorosis attributable to fluoride intakes in Great Britain.
	The requirement in Section 90(a)1 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (introduced by Section 58 of the Water Act 2003) is for strategic health authorities (SHAs) to monitor the health of populations receiving fluoridated water and applies to SHAs with existing fluoridation schemes. In producing guidance on how SHAs should implement this requirement, we will consider how intakes of fluoride should be monitored.

Hepatitis C

Baroness Masham of Ilton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What estimate they have made of the proportion of hepatitis C infected individuals who are receiving or who have received treatment with National Institute for Clinical Excellence-approved drugs, as a percentage of those who potentially could benefit from such treatment.

Lord Warner: We have not made such an estimate. The provision of hepatitis C treatment is a matter for local National Health Service organisations. Information on annual expenditure on National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence recommended drugs for hepatitis C treatment in 2004 is contained in a bulletin for the NHS Health and Social Care Information Centre which is available at www.ic.nhs.uk/pubs/hosppresc2004. Copies have been placed in the Library.

Hepatitis C

Baroness Masham of Ilton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What the cost has been of testing intravenous drug users for hepatitis C in the last three years for which figures are available; and what projection they have made of the cost of such testing for future years.

Lord Warner: The information requested is not collected centrally.

Housing: Social Housing Grants

Lord Taylor of Warwick: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why the Housing Corporation's attempts to make social housing grants available to the private sector have resulted in only four private firms becoming involved with the project.

Baroness Andrews: The Housing Corporation's New Partnerships in Affordable Housing programme for 2005 was the first time non-registered social landlords were able to bid for social housing grants. In the event only a limited number of bids to the New Partnerships Programme from both registered social landlords and non-RSLs met the corporation's requirements such as fit with regional housing priorities and timeliness of delivery. However, four non-RSLs were awarded grants for 14 sites. An external evaluation will look at the process to enable lessons to be learnt and applied more widely across the corporation's investment programmes. Non-registered bodies have also bid for the corporation's main national affordable housing programme (2006/08). Their bids are currently being considered alongside those of RSLs.

Human Rights Act 1998

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What steps are being taken to identify a suitable test case in which the Government can intervene to clarify the meaning of public authority under the Human Rights Act 1998.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Arrangements have been set up with the Registrar of Civil Appeals and through him the head of the Administrative Court Office to notify us of a suitable case at the earliest opportunity.

Licensing Act 2003: Excise Warehouses

Earl Attlee: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether excise warehouses that are registered with HM Revenue and Customs and mainly or exclusively hold and manage stocks for a third party are required to be licensed under the Licensing Act 2003, and, if so, in what circumstances.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The holding and management of stocks of alcohol are not themselves licensable activities. Provided the alcohol is not sold to another party, there will be no need for a licence.
	Nor is a licence required for wholesale sales from premises owned or leased by the seller for consumption off the premises, where the sale is made:
	to a trader for the purposes of his trade;
	to a club, which holds a club premises certificate, for the purposes of that club;
	to the holder of a personal licence for the purposes of making sales authorised by a premises licence;
	to the holder of a premises licence for the purpose of making sales authorised by that licence; or
	to the premises user in relation to a temporary event notice for the purpose of making sales authorised by that notice.
	The full range of activities carried out in any individual warehouse should be considered carefully, and legal advice sought if necessary, before any decision is made about the need for an authorisation under the Licensing Act 2003.

Limousines: Licensing

Lord Bradshaw: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will bring forward a licensing scheme for limousines.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I refer the noble Lord to the debate on the Road Safety Bill in Hansard on 29 November (cols. 122–27). The Government are satisfied that the current licensing arrangements for passenger-carrying vehicles already adequately provide for the licensing of limousines.

Local Government: Conduct Regime

Lord Greaves: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have proposals to change the rules to give the Standards Board for England or Standards Adjudication Panels the power to award costs to councillors who are cleared of charges against them.

Baroness Andrews: Following the recent publication of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's discussion paper, Standards of Conduct in English Local Government: The Future, the ODPM will be considering with the Standards Board for England, the adjudication panel and other stakeholders options for the development of the future local government conduct regime, but currently have no proposals of the kind referred to. Under existing regulations, it is open to local authorities to indemnify councillors for personal liability for actions or decisions taken by them in the course of their official duties, although where a member admits or is proven to have breached the code of conduct for members, he must reimburse any costs incurred by the authority in respect of proceedings taken against him.

MMR/MR Vaccine Litigation

Earl Howe: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many legal aid certificates have been issued in respect of the MMR/MR vaccine litigation; and how many have been discharged.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The Legal Services Commission's computer records, at 19 January 2006, show that 1,446 such certificates have been issued. 1,351 have been discharged. 95 remain live, all of which relate to conditions other than autism and bowel disease.

MMR/MR Vaccine Litigation

Earl Howe: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In respect of the MMR/MR vaccine litigation, how many legal proceedings have been commenced; and in how many cases have damages been awarded.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: It is not possible to answer the question in the format requested as the department does not record centrally volumes of court proceedings to identify MMR/MR vaccine litigation. The Legal Services Commission (LSC) is responsible for publicly funded legal services in England and Wales. The LSC records the number of legal aid certificates issued, but does not record the point in time when proceedings commence under these certificates. The LSC is not aware of any damages that have been awarded so far in respect of the MMR/MR vaccine litigation.

MMR/MR Vaccine Litigation

Earl Howe: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In respect of the MMR/MR vaccine litigation, how much legal aid has been spent on (a) solicitors' fees; (b) barristers' fees; and (c) experts' fees; which firms of solicitors, barristers and experts have been involved; and how much legal aid has been spent on each group.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: It is not possible to answer the question at this stage. The MMR litigation is a particularly complex area involving both generic and individual work, some of which is ongoing or has not yet been paid for.
	Some legal aid certificates will be undergoing assessment by the court at the end of March 2006. If the court reaches a decision and all the outstanding bills are paid, the Legal Services Commission (LSC) will then be able to provide figures.

MMR/MR Vaccine Litigation

Earl Howe: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What advice on the merits of the MMR/MR litigation provided by barristers (a) having an interest in being paid legal aid fees in the litigation; and (b) not having such an interest, was obtained by the Legal Services Commission; and how much such advice cost.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Due to the size and complexity of the case a number of senior barristers were used by the Legal Services Commission and its predecessor the Legal Aid Board. Barristers gave advice at regular intervals through the life of the case, including a definitive opinion in August 2003 which led to the certificates being discharged. The three lead barristers on the generic work have been paid £463,782, £445,601 and £424,659 respectively. No barristers provided advice who did not have an interest in being paid legal aid fees.

MMR/MR Vaccine Litigation

Earl Howe: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What evaluation they have made of the cost-effectiveness of the MMR/MR vaccine litigation; and whether they have plans to investigate the circumstances in which the litigation came to be publicly-funded.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The Legal Services Commission (LSC) has undertaken internal reviews of the MMR/MR litigation and monitored its progress as it does with all publicly funded multi-party actions. As litigation is still in progress, it would not be appropriate to comment further on this case. The funding for the MMR litigation commenced in the early 1990s. Since then, the LSC had made significant changes to the funding of multi-party actions generally. Key changes include the introduction of affordability criteria, tendering based on quality and price, and "risk rates" to share the risk between the LSC and the service providers, so that service providers would be unlikely to profit from a case which was unsuccessful.

Northern Ireland: Alleged Spy Ring

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the Attorney-General has indicated an intention to outline the reasons why the cases against William Mackessy and others were withdrawn in the public interest; and, if so, what these reasons are.

Lord Goldsmith: I have outlined the reasons in this case in a number of letters, including one to the noble Lord, and most recently in response to a request from the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee. Its report, which includes my response, has been published and has been placed in the Library of the House. I have also replied to an earlier question form the noble Lord (Official Report, 14/12/05, WA 168–69).

People Trafficking

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Adonis on 26 January (HL3485), whether other operations, similar to Operation Paladin at Heathrow airport, exist at other air and sea ports, for the identification and protection of children or adults who have been trafficked or smuggled into Britain; and, if not, whether they have plans for improvements in this area.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The Kingston pilot is a three-month trial, which attempts to identify vulnerable children who are travelling to the UK on direct flights from Jamaica, taking place at Heathrow, Gatwick and Manchester airports. Airline staff participating in the Kingston pilot received child protection awareness training delivered by UKIS and the Metropolitan Police. A hotline manned by border control staff has been provided to airline check-in staff so that they can report concerns about children travelling to the UK during the trial. The pilot, which began on 31 October 2005, ran for three months. The results are currently being analysed to see whether the process can be rolled out to other areas of the world of even greater concern, in particular West Africa.
	The Kingston pilot is one of several initiatives aimed at identifying and dealing appropriately with children at risk prior to their arrival in the United Kingdom. Other areas include:
	The use of a network of airline immigration liaison officers who are posted in most of the countries that give us greatest cause for concern with regard to minors, particularly unaccompanied asylum seeking minors. Some 892 inadequately documented children were denied boarding on flights to the UK between January and November 2005 after airline check-in staff referred to airline liaison officers.
	Work undertaken internationally on drafting best practice guidance on the carriage of minors.
	The introduction of a new child visitor category in the Immigration Rules, which requires parents or guardians of children who are visa nationals to demonstrate that suitable arrangements have been made for the travel, reception and care of children intending to visit the UK.

Pharmaceutical Product Litigation

Earl Howe: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many legally aided liability cases involving a medicinal product or medical device were closed in the last year, indicating how many cases (a) proceeded beyond investigation; and (b) resulted in an award of damages or a settlement involving an agreement to pay damages.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

Pharmaceutical Product Litigation

Earl Howe: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Which 10 firms of solicitors have received the highest legal aid fees for product liability work involving a medicinal product or medical device in the last year; and, in each case, what was (a) the amount received; (b) the number of cases taken; (c) the number of cases taken which proceeded beyond investigation; and (d) the number of cases taken which resulted in an award of damages or a settlement involving an agreement to pay damages.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

Pharmaceutical Product Litigation

Earl Howe: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Which 10 barristers have received the highest legal aid fees for product liability work involving a medicinal product or medical device in the last year; and, in each case, what was (a) the amount received; (b) the number of cases taken; (c) the number of cases taken which proceeded beyond investigation; and (d) the number of cases taken which resulted in an award of damages or a settlement involving an agreement to pay damages; and whether the barrister concerned was Queen's Counsel or junior counsel.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

Pharmaceutical Product Litigation

Earl Howe: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What legally aided multi-party product liability actions, whether in negligence or in strict liability, there have been since 1990 in respect of a pharmaceutical product or medical device, indicating (a) the number of legal aid certificates issued; (b) the number of individual cases in which legal proceedings were issued; (c) the total amount of legal aid money spent; and (d) the number of individual claims receiving damages by settlement or award of court.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

Police: Geographical and Population Areas

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the geographical area and population size of each of the present police authority areas; and how large in area and population size the proposed merged police authorities will be.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The geographical area and population size of each of the present police authority areas is in the attached table. No decisions have been made as yet on potential merged police authority areas so information on their area and population size cannot be given at this stage.
	
		Police Force geographic area and population—based on 2004 population estimates
		
			 Police Force/Authority Geographic Area (sq. miles) Population 
			 Avon and Somerset 1,843 1,519,119 
			 Bedfordshire 475 576,218 
			 Cambridgeshire 1,307 737,890 
			 Cheshire 902 992,642 
			 City of London 1 8,605 
			 Cleveland 230 553,311 
			 Cumbria 2,626 494,782 
			 Derbyshire 1,012 979,226 
			 Devon and Cornwall 3,949 1,619,062 
			 Dorset 1,022 700,419 
			 Durham 935 595,388 
			 Dyfed Powys 4,227 503,663 
			 Essex 1,415 1,635,605 
			 Gloucestershire 1,021 572,791 
			 GMP 491 2,539,043 
			 Gwent 598 556,641 
			 Hampshire 1,598 1,801,442 
			 Hertfordshire 632 1,041,319 
			 Humberside 1,354 887,521 
			 Kent 1,438 1,610,310 
			 Lancashire 1,185 1,434,871 
			 Leicestershire 982 945,480 
			 Lincolnshire 2,278 673,531 
			 Merseyside 248 1,365,832 
			 Metropolitan Police Service 599 7,420,617 
			 Norfolk 2,067 816,525 
			 North Wales 2,374 674,498 
			 North Yorkshire 3,199 764,866 
			 Northamptonshire 929 646,731 
			 Northumbria 2,142 1,396,374 
			 Nottinghamshire 831 1,034,739 
			 South Wales 800 1,217,660 
			 South Yorkshire 597 1,278,434 
			 Staffordshire 1,046 1,050,609 
			 Suffolk 1,462 683,736 
			 Surrey 643 1,067,186 
			 Sussex 1,458 1,510,445 
			 Thames Valley 2,211 2,120,859 
			 Warwickshire 761 525,481 
			 West Mercia 2,852 1,178,763 
			 West Midlands 347 2,579,153 
			 West Yorkshire 781 2,108,028 
			 Wiltshire 1,342 626,809 
		
	
	Notes:
	1. Police force population data are based on Office for National Statistics Mid-2004 Population Estimates.
	2. Force geographic area is rounded to the nearest square mile.

Police: National Intelligence System

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What progress they have made with the preparation of a full business case for the national police intelligence system; and whether they still intend to publish it before the end of March 2006.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Good progress is being made and the Home Office group investment board will consider the business case by the end of March. Business cases are not, however, published until contracts have been finalised and signed as earlier disclosure could prejudice the successful outcome of any proposed procurements.

Questions for Written Answer: Home Office

Lord Jopling: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why the Home Office has not answered 21 of the 48 Questions for Written Answer which have been tabled between four and 11 weeks ago, when the target time for answers is two weeks; and whether, if invited, the Secretary of State for the Home Department would be prepared to appear before a committee of the House of Lords to explain these delays.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I and other Ministers give serious attention and make every effort to answer Questions substantively and in accordance with the performance guidelines set. To emphasise this, my department has now actively reviewed the way that Members' Questions for Written Answer are handled with a view to improving our performance. I fully support these new working arrangements which should ensure that Questions are replied to within the given timescales wherever possible.

Railways: Sailsbury-Exeter

Lord Patten: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they intend to make one of the conditions for companies bidding for the new South West rail franchises that the chosen undertaking makes the railway between Salisbury and Exeter double rather than single track, as at present.

Lord Davies of Oldham: No. The upgrade to the Salisbury-Exeter track constitutes a significant infrastructure investment which would need to be subject to business case and value for money assessments.
	It is expected that bidders will be asked to submit a priced option for the operation of an enhanced service (hourly Waterloo-Exeter and hourly Axminster-Exeter) as part of the invitation to tender. Bidders would need to assume that the capital costs would be funded by a third party.

Roads: Funding

Lord Hanningfield: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Davies of Oldham on 18 January (WA 122), how much funding each local transport authority has received, broken down per mile of road, within its area since 1997.

Lord Davies of Oldham: Table 1, which follows, shows the funding allocated to local authorities in the local transport capital settlements between 1998–99 and 2005–06 (inclusive) per mile of road.
	The funding per mile of road varies between local authority areas for a number of reasons including because demands on funding (such as those related to public transport, congestion, road safety and capital road and bridge maintenance) vary between different types of area and road. Some figures are affected significantly by one-off major projects. The quality of local transport plans and their delivery also affects some capital funding allocations.
	
		Table 1: Local Transport Capital Funding (1998–99 to 2005–06) -- Per Mile of Road by Local Authority
		
			 Local Authority Name Funds (£000s) per mile 
			 Bedfordshire and Luton Borough Councils 52 
			 Cambridgeshire County Council 40 
			 Essex County Council 36 
			 Hertfordshire County Council 55 
			 Norfolk County Council 29 
			 Peterborough City Council 60 
			 Southend-on-Sea Borough Council 128 
			 Suffolk County Council 32 
			 Thurrock Borough Council 72 
			 Derby City and Derbyshire CountyCouncils 38 
			 Leicester City and Leicestershire CountyCouncils 49 
			 Lincolnshire County Council 22 
			 Northamptonshire County Council 28 
			 Nottingham City and NottinghamshireCounty Councils 70 
			 Rutland Council 26 
			 Darlington Borough Council 60 
			 Durham County Council 48 
			 Hartlepool Borough Council 71 
			 Middlesbrough Borough Council 64 
			 Northumberland County Council 30 
			 Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council 75 
			 Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council 96 
			 Tyne and Wear Metropolitan County 120 
			 Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council 77 
			 Blackpool Borough Council 61 
			 Cheshire County Council 43 
			 Cumbria County Council 21 
			 Greater Manchester Metropolitan County 138 
			 Halton Borough Council 109 
			 Lancashire County Council 39 
			 Merseyside Metropolitan County 109 
			 Warrington Borough Council 61 
			 Bracknell Forest Borough Council 44 
			 Brighton & Hove Council 101 
			 Buckinghamshire County Council 45 
			 East Sussex County Council 35 
			 Hampshire County Council 32 
			 Isle of Wight Council 71 
			 Kent County Council 42 
			 Medway Council 133 
			 Milton Keynes Council 30 
			 Oxfordshire County Council 46 
			 Portsmouth City Council 100 
			 Reading Borough Council 178 
			 Slough Borough Council 48 
			 Southampton City Council 73 
			 Surrey County Council 45 
			 West Berkshire Council 25 
			 West Sussex County Council 35 
			 Windsor and Maidenhead (Royal Borough) 43 
			 Wokingham District Council 38 
			 Bath and North East Somerset Council 55 
			 Bournemouth and Poole Borough Councils 56 
			 Bristol City Council 85 
			 Cornwall County Council 25 
			 Devon County Council 20 
			 Dorset County Council 22 
			 Gloucestershire County Council 31 
			 North Somerset Council 40 
			 Plymouth City Council 83 
			 Somerset County Council 28 
			 South Gloucestershire Council 78 
			 Swindon Borough Council 65 
			 Torbay Council 56 
			 Wiltshire County Council 35 
			 Herefordshire County Council 26 
			 Shropshire County Council 32 
			 Staffordshire County Council 33 
			 Stoke-on-Trent City Council 87 
			 Telford and Wrekin Council 47 
			 Warwickshire County Council 32 
			 West Midlands Metropolitan County 127 
			 Worcestershire County Council 33 
			 East Riding of Yorkshire Council 28 
			 Kingston Upon Hull City Council 111 
			 North East Lincolnshire Council 94 
			 North Lincolnshire Council 33 
			 North Yorkshire County Council 26 
			 South Yorkshire Metropolitan County 88 
			 West Yorkshire Metropolitan County 73 
			 York City Council 78 
		
	
	Notes:
	Figures are the total local transport capital allocations (in £000s) made for 1998–99 to 2005–06 inclusive divided by road miles. 1997–98 is not included as some councils' boundaries were changed, and councils were abolished or created between 1997–98 and 1998–99.
	London authorities and the Isles of Scilly council are not included as they are not in the local transport plan system. The Greater London Authority makes transport capital allocations to London boroughs.
	Figures for metropolitan areas are county wide and relate to the sum of allocations made to district councils and passenger transport authorities.
	Figures for a few other councils are combined as they produce joint transport plans.

Stansted Airport

Lord Hanningfield: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What assistance, financial, technical or otherwise, the Department for Transport has provided to BAA over its plans for the expansion of Stansted airport, including its proposals for a second runway, published on 9 December 2005.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The British Airports Authority (BAA) has brought forward proposals for the expansion of Stansted in line with the Government's support for a second runway at Stansted, as set out in the air transport White Paper. The Government are working with BAA to assess the impacts on road and rail networks associated with a second runway at Stansted airport. However, the plans for development of the airport itself, and the consultation on airport layout proposals for a second runway, is a matter for BAA as airport operator.

Sudan

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What representations they have made to the Sudanese Government about the arrest of Sudanese and foreign human rights activists, and threats made to the editor of the Citizen newspaper, in connection with the African Union summit in Khartoum.

Lord Triesman: On 22 January 2006 the 35 participants in an open civil society forum on working with the African Union in Khartoum, organised by the Sudanese Organisation Against Torture, were detained for more than three hours at the conference venue by the Sudanese authorities. All were released unharmed. Our Ambassador in Khartoum raised this with the Government of Sudan and attended the scene during the detention. Other embassy staff were on hand to speak to the participants and provide consular assistance which, thankfully, was not needed. The editor of the Citizen newspaper was also subjected to threats after his newspaper vocally opposed Sudan taking chairmanship of the African Union.
	Such harassment of civil society is unacceptable: the Government of Sudan must strictly uphold the freedoms of expression and association that are guaranteed under the constitution of Sudan. We are pressing the EU presidency to lead a formal high-level protest to the Government of Sudan in the coming days, and will continue to raise this matter with the Government of Sudan.
	The UK strongly supports the development of civil society in Sudan. We are supporting a capacity building programme for civil society organisations and the media in Sudan including providing more than £200,000 over three years to support the work of the Sudanese Organisation Against Torture. We are also contributing to the multi-donor trust fund which is developing a civil society programme to support a civil society voice and advocacy.

Turkey: Orhan Pamuk

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, following the Orhan Pamuk case, they will make representations to the Government of Turkey concerning (a) the freedom of individuals to speak about the deaths of a million Armenians and to identify those who were responsible; and (b) the relevance of such freedom of expression to the Copenhagen conditions for accession to the European Union.

Lord Triesman: The UK welcomed the closure of the case against Orhan Pamuk, but remains concerned that a number of individuals in Turkey continue to face prosecution and conviction for the non-violent expression of opinion. Cases of concern include the suspended sentence already handed down to Hrant Dink under Article 301 for "insulting Turkishness" in a series of articles he wrote on Armenian identity.
	My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary raised this with his Turkish counterpart when visiting Ankara on 26 January. We will continue to stress to Turkey the need to ensure that the right to free speech is respected in line with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, and the standards required for EU accession, including when discussing the tragedies of 1915–16. It was encouraging that a conference debated this issue on 24–25 September 2005 in Istanbul, and we welcome the Turkish Prime Minister's subsequent statement stressing the importance of respect for opposing points of view, and expressing his desire to live in a Turkey which enjoyed freedom in the widest sense.

Western European Union

Lord Jopling: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the current cost of maintaining the Western European Union including the Parliamentary Assembly; what is the rationale for continuing its existence; and whether there are plans to disband it under discussion.

Lord Triesman: The UK's contribution to the Western European Union (WEU) and its assembly in 2005 was £1.7 million. The budget for 2006 has yet to be finalised.
	The member states of the WEU undertook, in the Brussels Treaty (1948, modified 1954) to provide each other with a mutual defence commitment. This mutual defence commitment remains, although when NATO was established in 1949, WEU members accepted that it would be carried out through NATO. In 1992, the WEU agreed it should be ready to undertake the Petersberg tasks—humanitarian and rescue missions, peacekeeping, peacemaking and crisis management. Following the development of the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) the WEU transferred these crisis management functions and responsibilities to the EU under the Nice Treaty in 2000. This transfer continues and the Western European Armaments Group, part of the WEU, transferred its responsibilities to the European Defence Agency in 2005. The WEU assembly remains active, bringing together parliamentarians from 28 European countries, and has oversight of intergovernmental co-operation in European defence, particularly in the field of armaments. The Government see value in this collective oversight and the WEU assembly will remain in being for as long as Article IX of the modified Brussels treaty remains in force, member governments go on funding the assembly and national parliaments support it. The UK is not currently engaged in any discussions about the disbanding of the WEU.